It is time we redefined what we mean by conservation and what constitutes gender issues. I am in Almora, where a group of anguished women are telling me how their already hard life has become harsher because of marauding monkeys and wild boar. Their stories are heart-rending. One woman tells me how her young daughter was attacked. Another one talks of how she was mauled. She shows me her scars. All talk about how their crops are being devastated. “We get one-third (yield) or even less now.” Nothing is left, another says.

It is time we accepted that each household and commercial establishment is a waste generator and so a potential polluter

Last fortnight, I discussed the need to reinvent garbage management in our cities so that we can process waste and not “landfill” it. This, as I wrote, required households and institutions to segregate their waste at source so that it could be managed as a resource. It also means that we need to limit how much is dumped by imposing a tax on landfill. I want to follow up on this idea this fortnight.

Segregation at source should be at the heart of municipalities’ solid waste management system

We know that we have a serious garbage problem. But the problem is not about finding the right technology for waste disposal. The problem is how to integrate the technology with a system of household-level segregation so that waste does not end up in landfills, but is processed and reused. It is clear that there will be no value from waste, as energy or material, if it is not segregated. But this is where our waste management system stops short.

One thing is clear—the solutions must work for the poor, for them to work for the rich

Some fortnights ago, I had discussed the issue of poverty and environment. I had then said that the question today is not whether the poor are responsible for environmental degradation but whether environmental management works if it does not address inequality and poverty. Why?

We know that the poor are worst affected by environmental degradation. They live in poverty; have the highest exposure to pollution; drink contaminated water, which is responsible for the highest mortality among children; breathe polluted air; and depend on depleting forest resources for their survival. Research over the years has made it clear that the poor, through their intensive use of natural resources, are not responsible for environmental degradation.